Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I don’t know why...certainly a detail worthy of mention, though given the alleged circumstances, it’s understandable that the alleged victim doesn’t recollect the incident, or doesn’t care to. Seems pretty difficult to judge the credibility of the alleged witness if they’re not allowed to give their account, which was rather the point of the piece.
As to the relative credibility of the witnesses, I think it’s fairly self-evident. Blasey-Ford had an experience that she had told her therapist and her SO about...so, yeah, I guess maybe she made it up years after the fact to potentially stall the possible nomination of a circuit court judge to the Supreme Court? Is that what you’re trying to say? I found her testimony overall more convincing than his. Hers had a lack of specificity, recalling events of 30 years ago. His had what appear to be conscious, willing misrepresentations and evasions. That doesn’t mean he did it, but neither should we have to play your game of “pics or it didn’t happen.” I’d argue that her material situation was made worse, not better, by her testimony, so I’m not really sure what her incentive was to fabricate the story.
Runnin
Well-known member
I said BKs high school and college "behavior" should make him unworthy of consideration to the Supreme Court, not the fact that he had a few beers now and then. He was a known "party animal" who became belligerent and there were multiple accusations of sexual misconduct involving girls. That's what should have had his nomination thrown out. Then his childish behavior at the hearing should've been the final nail in his coffin. The fact that the whole system ground to a halt for a couple of spoiled boys pitching a tantrum was a disgrace to watch.
If there were ever any accusations of Obama acting the fool in public, even in high school, he never would've won anything. Admitting to drug use as a youth is a sign of good character.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
But that’s, kinda the whole point, right? Obama admitted to being mad smoked out in HS and to using cocaine...Kavanaugh played the choirboy despite ample evidence to the contrary. I don’t really care that he was/is a boozer, but it’s pretty clear that he was willing to lie about it.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So let’s extend the logic a bit further...BK couldn’t admit to saying and doing the dumb **** that he did, and to being a blackout boozer because, even if his behavior was spotless, admitting it would allow for the possibility that he had done the things that he was accused to have done. So he just straight up lied about all of it, with the knowledge that it wasn’t actionable, and that the powers that be had his back. That’s ultimately what bugged me about his confirmation. The brigade of elite opinion which rode—and still ride—to the defense of this ****ty mediocrity and his obvious lies...for the sake of ideology.
Runnin
Well-known member
Mr. Obama’s admissions are rare for a politician (his book, “Dreams From My Father,” was written before he ran for office.) They briefly became a campaign issue in December when an adviser to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Mr. Obama’s chief Democratic rival, suggested that his history with drugs would make him vulnerable to Republican attacks if he became his party’s nominee.
It's interesting that just a few short years ago, the Republicans would attack any blemish on a person's character, especially rumors of promiscuity. But now they find themselves not only standing behind, but championing the likes of Kavanaugh, Roy Moore and Donald Trump. Seems like a long drop but probably not so far.
It's interesting that just a few short years ago, the Republicans would attack any blemish on a person's character, especially rumors of promiscuity. But now they find themselves not only standing behind, but championing the likes of Kavanaugh, Roy Moore and Donald Trump. Seems like a long drop but probably not so far.
Runnin
Well-known member
Actually, lying under oath does make you a liar.
Runnin
Well-known member
New York Times' botched Kavanaugh story the latest in series of blunders from Opinion section
But the book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh," included a key detail that the essay published by the Times was lacking: The woman at the center of it, who'd been a student at the time of the incident, declined to be interviewed. Moreover, her friends said she did not recall the incident.
Let me translate that for you. The poor woman doesn't want to be dragged into this. She doesn't come forward and say "Hell no, nothing like that ever happened to me", which is what any person would do who had been mistakenly included in something they knew nothing about. Instead, she gets her friends to say she doesn't recall. A non-denial denial.
But the book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh," included a key detail that the essay published by the Times was lacking: The woman at the center of it, who'd been a student at the time of the incident, declined to be interviewed. Moreover, her friends said she did not recall the incident.
Let me translate that for you. The poor woman doesn't want to be dragged into this. She doesn't come forward and say "Hell no, nothing like that ever happened to me", which is what any person would do who had been mistakenly included in something they knew nothing about. Instead, she gets her friends to say she doesn't recall. A non-denial denial.
sturg33
I
Ffs man the President who appointed the two judges won the popular vote.
That is just a fact
sturg33
I
Of course we know why. The NYT is an activist publication.
The issue with Ford, to me was:
1. Her lawyer admitted she was politically motivated
2. She could provide zero evidence
3. Her own father didnt believe her
4. The ONE witness she named who could corroborate her story said it was bull ****
I'd also like to ask you if you're comfortable setting a precedent like this where an evidence less allegation can effectively end a political opponent. Do you not think the Republicans would return the favor?
sturg33
I
I dont care at all that Obama was a coke head just like I dont care that BK partied a lot in college. If that's the behavior that disqualifies people from public office... well **** maybe that's how we can reduce our government by 90%
As far as I recall, BK never denied drinking or partying
striker42
Well-known member
Fifty percent of the Democrat appointed SCOTUS justices were appointed by a man who has been credibly accused of sexual assault.
Honestly people, the attempts at grabbing moral high ground are kind of ridiculous. I'd have more respect for people if they were just honest and said the reason they either defend or attack Kavanaugh is because of the way they think he's going to vote.
Suppose that there were no accusations against Kavanaugh but instead similarly credible accusations were leveled against Breyer. How many on the right would defend Breyer and say he shouldn't be punished for unsubstantiated claims? How many on the left would be claiming this is a politically motivated smear campaign and that Breyer should remain in office?
Attack or defend Kavanaugh all you like, just be honest about why you're doing it.
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Couldnt agree more. Screw those propaganda outlets. We should all take the Presidents advice and tune into One American News Newtwork for pure unbiased reporting.
You have become quite the odd one.
You’re an idiot. All she had to do was call the cops instead she broke into his house and you think she did nothing wrong.